This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

I have a solution to the tit for tat mentality that our legislators have when appointing judges. Take that ability away from them.

In our justice system every defendent can be judged by their peers. aka Jury. If this is good enough to convict someone for rape and murder where they can get the death penalty then it should be good enough to nominate judges to the Supreme Courts. And with today's technology it would be a simple matter to make it a jury pooled nationally so as to attempt to avoid partisanship.

1: Randomly select jury pool. (to make sure they have at least some intelligence we could make the selection process based off of high school diplomas instead of drivers license like most places) 1 jury panel per judge.

2: Those that were selected must report to a specific local to deliberate with the rest of the selected Jury members. All of their expenses will be paid for while they are deliberating, transportation shall be provided via private government jet/car. They will be paid based on their current salary at their current job so as to not lose anything so that their bills can be paid. Just like a regular jury the place that they work for cannot fire them.

3: During deliberations the prospective judge will be made available to answer questions posed by the jurors.

4: All of the Judges education history and case files must be made available to the Jurors. Any and all opinions that the Judge wrote or said in public on specific case files must also be made available.

5: Jurors will be allowed to contact family members during this time but no one else.

6: No one except emergency personel and assigned security detail may get within 100 feet or call a jury member from the moment that said jury member is selected.

7: Jurors have a maximum of 6 months to decide if the judge they were reviewing is acceptable or not. If no decision can be made then judge is automatically rejected and the jurors must pay back all that was paid out due to any and all expenses incurred by jurors. This is to prevent people from taking advantage of the system. The amount jurors must pay back can be adjusted or nulled based on unavoidable circumstances, a regular court can decide this on a case by case basis.

8: When judging whether a judge should be allowed or not the decision must come from a unanimous decision, less one.

9: Each jury panel will be assigned a security detail (at least 2 security people per juror). The panel will also be assigned a lawyer from the highest rated university and law firm in the country. IE the lawyer must be from both. If that is not possible then the lawyer must be from the highest rated university and second highest rated law firm in the country or visa versa. On down the line if needed.

Please note that this is just a SUGESTION. I won't care if it gets clipped or improved on or totally thrown out. But if it is thrown out then perhaps you could also take the time to present your own idea instead of just being negative to an idea that was put out? I also thought up a couple more possible ideas while I was writing this one. So its not like there are not possibilites out there.

What I really like about your suggestions are that they allow for regular people, non politicians, to get involved in the inner workings of DC... and they'll have no interest in preserving a career or playing politics. It's all well meaning. For that reason I really like it.. but it seems like it might be costly. I think other people would argue, what about their qualifications (the jurors) how do we know we can trust them?

I know there would be pre jury selections, but it still begs the question; what type of background and education are sufficient enough? It seems like that could turn into a political fight...

Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

Originally Posted by SheWolf

What I really like about your suggestions are that they allow for regular people, non politicians, to get involved in the inner workings of DC... and they'll have no interest in preserving a career or playing politics. It's all well meaning. For that reason I really like it.. but it seems like it might be costly. I think other people would argue, what about their qualifications (the jurors) how do we know we can trust them?

I know there would be pre jury selections, but it still begs the question; what type of background and education are sufficient enough? It seems like that could turn into a political fight...

In all honesty I personally don't care about monetary cost when it comes to appointing judges that are suppose to hold the rest of our government in check from taking away our rights. But I do see your point and really don't have an answer for it as there are those that would care. I guess we could put a limit on how much is spent based on certain minimal requirements.

As far as the background and education goes I would argue that it be the same as that allowed for regular jurors. That is why I put in the provision that a top notch lawyer be appointed to them in order to answer any questions that they may have. It would help allieviate(sp?) the problem of stupid or ignorant jurors. Might not solve it, but it should help. Perhaps we could also appoint a constitutional historian to help even further? I would of course want them to only answer questions and never give their opinions so as to keep the jury "pure" for lack of a better term atm.

I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

In all honesty I personally don't care about monetary cost when it comes to appointing judges that are suppose to hold the rest of our government in check from taking away our rights. But I do see your point and really don't have an answer for it as there are those that would care. I guess we could put a limit on how much is spent based on certain minimal requirements.

As far as the background and education goes I would argue that it be the same as that allowed for regular jurors. That is why I put in the provision that a top notch lawyer be appointed to them in order to answer any questions that they may have. It would help allieviate(sp?) the problem of stupid or ignorant jurors. Might not solve it, but it should help. Perhaps we could also appoint a constitutional historian to help even further? I would of course want them to only answer questions and never give their opinions so as to keep the jury "pure" for lack of a better term atm.

Anything that will get the regular folks involved in the inner workings of DC and be active in it... is a good idea IMO

Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

Originally Posted by drz-400

I believe you two are wrong for focusing on the 9th and 10th amendments. For example, the "right to privacy" was found to be a form of substantive due process. It is part of the 14th amendment. This is also true when applying any form of the bill of rights to states.

wrong-You are confused -i was focusing on those two because I was replying to Samsmart who mentioned those two

Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

SCOTUS Judges are not answerable to the American people either. When they are put into their position they are there for life except on two conditions. They retire. They are "impeached", and when was the last time a judge was impeached?

The people who put them in business are answerable to the American people. They're the same people who decide whether, or not, to impeach a justice.

That's why judicial appointments should remain the job of our elected congress and not an appointed panel.

Originally Posted by Top Cat

At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva

ahhh... you said "results from Amendments", yeah, that was pretty clear, my bad.

I take it that you think that freedom of speech applies only to speech then, and not expression? That one could yell "bomb under my seat" in a darkened movie theatre too? It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech".

So, making a law against hate speech is unConstitutional, right?

Yes, making a law that prohibits hate speech would be unconstitutional, provided of course that it is not an incitement to immediate violence. In other words, walking up to a group of black people and calling them all the N-word with clinched fists in the air would be akin to yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater.

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

John F. Kennedy

Originally Posted by Montecresto

It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

Originally Posted by GPS_Flex

Yes, making a law that prohibits hate speech would be unconstitutional, provided of course that it is not an incitement to immediate violence. In other words, walking up to a group of black people and calling them all the N-word with clinched fists in the air would be akin to yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater.

Does the Constitution distinguish between intent of words though? It just says that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. There aren't any provisions that I am aware of. Are there provisions? We can either say whatever we want, whenever we want... or we can't.

My point is, that if congress or laws say that we can't say whatever we want, whenever we want and it is passed and considered Constitutional, then we have an evolving document. If it is UnConstitutional, then you are advocating that a person could run around screaming that all niggers should leave the country or that ol' fire in a crowded theatre adage would be fine... right?

Originally Posted by Bucky

I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

Usually a gag for wise mouthed insulting little girls. Then some good nylon rope so I can tie them up, toss them in the trunk of my car and forget about them.

Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

The people who put them in business are answerable to the American people. They're the same people who decide whether, or not, to impeach a justice.

That's why judicial appointments should remain the job of our elected congress and not an appointed panel.

And look at the trouble we're having with that system. What was this thread about again?

Simple fact of the matter is that if there is a problem then it needs to be fixed. I gave a couple of suggestions. Have you got any ideas? Because you're not going to change how politicians think and act.

I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

Originally Posted by Kal'Stang

And look at the trouble we're having with that system. What was this thread about again?

Simple fact of the matter is that if there is a problem then it needs to be fixed. I gave a couple of suggestions. Have you got any ideas? Because you're not going to change how politicians think and act.

What's the problem? We're quite a few judges short?

The problem could be a significant over abundance of nutjob, fring judges, legislating from the bench.

The current system, while not perfect, will not and should not be changed. If we do things your way, there will be no checks and balances within the judicial branch. That would be a problem.

Originally Posted by Top Cat

At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.